@ flagged aaron695: > The brutal reality is you don't have the IQ to understand averages or statistics like most people. > Most of our ancestors lucky enough

@ flagged aaron695: > The brutal reality is you don't have the IQ to understand averages or statistics like most people. > Most of our ancestors lucky enough to made it to 45 years old in human history did not make it to 70. > Using mode is misleading with "age", and you quickly showed you didn't understand 'the con' when you accidently tried to apply it. > This is a political, the "past was wonderful fantasy" which is anti-science. It's used by the Woke for instance." In this case I am using an equally "wrong" model on purpose while being well aware of its limitations, just to make a specific point. It highlights a point where people are doing exactly what you are accusing me of- romanticizing the present, and not understanding the reality of how it actually differs from the past. E.g. what are the actual reasons people had shorter life spans in the past, and what their lives were actually like. One should not forget the limitations of such a simple model, which was basically my point in the first place. I am fascinated by "evolutionary medicine" and using such ideas as a hypothesis generator to figure out ways to treat "modern diseases of civilization." I am in no way romanticizing the past, but trying to understand the specifics, to better figure out how to develop more effective modern day medical treatments, not to return to the past. In truth I despise political thinking altogether, and like to look at mechanisms and biological details. Your post smacks of "scientism" which is incompatible with actual practice of science. The very idea that a certain line of thinking or theorizing is "anti science" or should be taboo for political reasons is itself incompatible with creative open minded problem solving. I can see it was a mistake to use this specific example for discussing the problem with averages- ironically because it is so accurate. Since so many people on here hold the exact misunderstanding I was criticizing, they are getting angry and insulting me instead of my intent, which was to explain a phenomenon and have this click as a simple example of it. A less charged example, where people don't have strong opinions already would have been better.